Well, you're funny to me if that helps. I mean, I can only make clear I'm speaking of legally recognized gender a however many times before you hop in singing "Boys and Girls! Boys and Girls! EVERYONE is Boys & Girls!" and then throw a fit when I make the same point again for the X+1th time.

Yes, fine. If you want to call me a bigot for using an actual standard beyond "Whatever makes you feel good", go for it.

A property owner setting policy that works and doesn't need legislation to correct? You don't say.

If universal bathrooms were seen to "work" (beyond in a single person setting), builders would be all over that. Costs less to run plumbing and fixtures to a single location (and you could probably have less fixtures as well). They don't because it's not what most people want.

The differences between general discrimination and negative discrimination are fairly clear. It's rarely a fine line scenario.

Offering women's and men's rest rooms and locker rooms is an attempt to afford people a safer space, from whatever they perceive as threatening about a mixed environment. The goal isn't a separate but equal environment, it's to produce separate environments tailored to suit the specific needs of the group utilizing it. It gives women a place where they're surrounded by women and, hopefully, free from prying eyes. It gives men a place where they can do their business surrounded only by men, which might be important depending on what their notions of modesty are (and, you know, urinals). It's the same reason why affirmative action policies aren't negative discrimination--they're an attempt to make things equal when they aren't.

Providing a separate trans bathroom, however, would be negative discrimination. It's the same thing as forcing a bullied kid eat lunch/have recess alone in the classroom while everyone else is in the cafeteria or outside. Yeah, it's better in the sense that he or she is not getting bullied during that period, but it robs the child of valuable social experiences. It targets him or her as the source of the bullying, not the actual bullies.

A separate trans bathroom means trans women/men/other have to sacrifice access to their own safe space where they can be surrounded by people with the same gender identity as them. A trans man and women may both be trans, but they aren't the same gender, and the point of having a gender identity is possessing a certain shared identity with the other people who possess it. Trans men feel like men. They don't feel like trans women.

Imo, the short term answer is letting trans people use the bathroom they're most comfortable with. I don't have a better answer to this than having it handled on a case-by-case basis, the same way everything else is handled right now. In the long term, I hope that trans protections are put into place, and trans peoples are able to establish a legal gender without needing court orders and sexual reassignment surgery. One would hope that this correlates with a social shift that offers inclusion for trans peoples into our society's framework.

As for the issue from the perspective of a builder who needs to actually design a building, I'd say Target's system is good enough for the moment: Male restrooms, female restrooms, and a unisex "family" restroom for people who don't feel comfortable in either of the others. Family restrooms are typically a toilet, sink, and changing table. If you service a population of trans peoples that would make the single occupancy room an issue, I imagine you aren't transphobic enough to bar a trans person from the restroom they choose. This is definitely only a temporary system though.

I don't know what system would be better. I'm not trans and can't speak for them.

[quote=His Excellency Aethien] No, but in my perfect world with "one bathroom to rule them," urinals wouldn't be installed because there would be no need. Men can pee in toilets just as easily inside a stall.

With the current design of the toilet, I'd want to minimize men having to pee into the same public toilet that I have to sit down on. Two separate peeing set-ups is really convenient considering the anatomical differences and probably more hygienic. Which leads me to wonder why we even have toilet seats anymore. Why has no designed a toilet for the 21st century?

Individual isolated rooms would be the ideal, but impractical in many situations. No one seems to have problems deciding with porta-potty to line up at during crowded events.

I'm curious how legal gender status works. Obviously we're given a legal gender on our birth certificates. What's the process for changing that - is there physical criteria you have to meet, or can you change it just like changing your name?

I'm curious how legal gender status works. Obviously we're given a legal gender on our birth certificates. What's the process for changing that - is there physical criteria you have to meet, or can you change it just like changing your name?

[quote=His Excellency Aethien] No, but in my perfect world with "one bathroom to rule them," urinals wouldn't be installed because there would be no need. Men can pee in toilets just as easily inside a stall.

With the current design of the toilet, I'd want to minimize men having to pee into the same public toilet that I have to sit down on. Two separate peeing set-ups is really convenient considering the anatomical differences and probably more hygienic. Which leads me to wonder why we even have toilet seats anymore. Why has no designed a toilet for the 21st century?

Individual isolated rooms would be the ideal, but impractical in many situations. No one seems to have problems deciding with porta-potty to line up at during crowded events.

I'm curious how legal gender status works. Obviously we're given a legal gender on our birth certificates. What's the process for changing that - is there physical criteria you have to meet, or can you change it just like changing your name?

It's a state issue. One state (Mississippi, surprisingly) doesn't require anything but a request to change it. Most states require a court order to change it, and most of those will not issue that order unless the person has undergone reassignment surgery. Then there are states that only require reassignment surgery, and will change it upon request after that. Then, of course, you have the states that won't change it at all--I'm inclined to say this is a minority now, though.

As far as I know, most states just match your birth certificate for any laws with gender distinctions. And to the best of my knowledge, the federal government does too. Though, as Joph noted, some do not use that for everything--marriage is the biggest one. Because obviously the gays would reassign their sexes just to get married.

This process is actually one of the biggest political issues for trans peoples, though. Because it doesn't reflect the trans experience. The vast majority of trans peoples don't reassign their genitalia. For many, it's because it's a painful and cost-intensive process, and you lose a LOT of the nerves in the area. Sexual males are more likely to reassign than sexual females, because far more of the nerves are preserved. And few people want to give up sexual pleasure down yonder.

There's also the birth issue. Reassignment surgery renders you infertile, so anyone who wants biological children is unlikely to reassign.

And there are also people who just don't want to. Maybe they don't hold a gender identity that's 100% one or the other, or maybe they're happy to keep the genitals they were born with as long as they're allowed to live as the gender they identify as. Bodily changes to "pass" is often far more important to non-trans peoples than it is to them. Not that this is universal, by any means, I'm talking about statistics not individual feelings on an issue.

Even in states where you don't need to have surgery to reassign your legal gender, it's still generally very expensive to go through the legal process of changing it.

And there are also people who just don't want to. Maybe they don't hold a gender identity that's 100% one or the other, or maybe they're happy to keep the genitals they were born with as long as they're allowed to live as the gender they identify as. Bodily changes to "pass" is often far more important to non-trans peoples than it is to them. Not that this is universal, by any means, I'm talking about statistics not individual feelings on an issue.

This is fine by me (big sigh of relief from the transgen community, I know) and if there's ever a universal ability to change your legal gender by signing a card at the local library, I don't much care.

I don't, however, feel that individuals, businesses, organizations, local governments (inc. schools), etc should be accused of discrimination or bigotry for holding to the current standard or using current legal recognition as their benchmark. Be it for anything from which restroom to use to inclusion in gender-separated activities, housing assignments, gender based funding or whatever else.

I don't, however, feel that individuals, businesses, organizations, local governments (inc. schools), etc should be accused of discrimination or bigotry for holding to the current standard or using current legal recognition as their benchmark. Be it for anything from which restroom to use to inclusion in gender-separated activities, housing assignments, gender based funding or whatever else.

And we see Kohlsberg's opinion of Jophiel plummet.

____________________________

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

[quote=His Excellency Aethien] No, but in my perfect world with "one bathroom to rule them," urinals wouldn't be installed because there would be no need. Men can pee in toilets just as easily inside a stall.

With the current design of the toilet, I'd want to minimize men having to pee into the same public toilet that I have to sit down on. Two separate peeing set-ups is really convenient considering the anatomical differences and probably more hygienic. Which leads me to wonder why we even have toilet seats anymore. Why has no designed a toilet for the 21st century?

From what I gather from numerous anecdotal sources (those charged to clean them), women's toilets are much more disgusting than men's toilets. The general idea being that women seem to "hover" over the seat and make a mess. It's rare to see urine on the toilet seat in a men's stall. Probably cause we actually know how to raise/lower the seat as needed.

Urinals also use less water than toilets and use less space. If they weren't better than toilets for their function, mens rooms would just have a row of toilet stalls. Instead, we just see occasional abortive attempts to design a female urinal.

This is a bit late now, as you all have argued about bathrooms for a page and a half (still not one of the worst discussions here however) but I wanted to tell Alma:

On cross-dressing as a sexuality, everything I had ever heard indicated that a cross-dresser did so out of comfort and not sexual arousal. I still believe that, but the current definition of a transvestite is one who wears the clothing of the opposite *** for sexual arousal, so I concede that argument to you.

This is a bit late now, as you all have argued about bathrooms for a page and a half (still not one of the worst discussions here however) but I wanted to tell Alma:

On cross-dressing as a sexuality, everything I had ever heard indicated that a cross-dresser did so out of comfort and not sexual arousal. I still believe that, but the current definition of a transvestite is one who wears the clothing of the opposite *** for sexual arousal, so I concede that argument to you.

The issue with your statement is that "arousal" isn't a prerequisite for sexuality, hence why I quoted the definition of sexuality.

I don't think refusing to refer to women with words such as "girl" or "woman" is really a standard thing.

I have no idea what this means. Are you under the impression that using one's legally recognized gender as their gender is other settings isn't the norm?

Is this one of those Gbaji things? "You're married if you just say you're married, no need for any legal recognition!" and "You're a woman if you just say you're a woman!"?

I don't think you really understand how this works. Someone does not just decide one day that they are trans. Either they are or they aren't. Someone can no more decide this than they can the color of the sky. It is what it is, and whether other people realize it or not doesn't change the facts.

Almalieque wrote:

That's not the case. So, what is your opinion on an immigrant who comes to the US, who associates him or herself as a "United States Citizen", and complains when treated like an immigrant?

They are lying.

Quote:

And to the best of my knowledge, the federal government does too.

They are actually a bit more lenient on this. You can get a passport with the appropriate gender marker without SRS. This can actually then be used to get a driver's license changed as well, but usually not a birth certificate.

Quote:

There's also the birth issue. Reassignment surgery renders you infertile, so anyone who wants biological children is unlikely to reassign.

is it just me, or does anyone else want to know what happened to the other 8 rachels?

Do you wonder that every time someone appends a number to their name?

Yes, of course. Doesn't everyone?

I do.

____________________________

Theophany wrote:YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU. someproteinguy wrote:Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist. Astarin wrote:One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.

I don't think you really understand how this works. Someone does not just decide one day that they are trans. Either they are or they aren't. Someone can no more decide this than they can the color of the sky. It is what it is, and whether other people realize it or not doesn't change the facts.

No one knows, actually. I'd like to believe gender identity is set at birth, but nothing actually seems to indicate that. Don't present things you wish were true as facts. It's lazy. That aside, what difference does it make? Instead of aiming to remove a stigma by removing any element of choice, wouldn't it make more sense to just remove the stigma? Jim is genetically destined to feel he is a female, he can't help it. Oh ok, that's fine. John decided he wanted to try being a woman. Get the fucking pitchforks!

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

I don't think you really understand how this works. Someone does not just decide one day that they are trans. Either they are or they aren't. Someone can no more decide this than they can the color of the sky. It is what it is, and whether other people realize it or not doesn't change the facts.

No one knows, actually. I'd like to believe gender identity is set at birth, but nothing actually seems to indicate that. Don't present things you wish were true as facts. It's lazy. That aside, what difference does it make? Instead of aiming to remove a stigma by removing any element of choice, wouldn't it make more sense to just remove the stigma? Jim is genetically destined to feel he is a female, he can't help it. Oh ok, that's fine. John decided he wanted to try being a woman. Get the fucking pitchforks!

The bolded was my main point. I was responding to this:

Quote:

Is this one of those Gbaji things? "You're married if you just say you're married, no need for any legal recognition!" and "You're a woman if you just say you're a woman!"?

No one becomes something just because they say they are. Either they are, or they are not. The facts don't change just because there is no proof, or because no one knows the truth.

Quote:

No one knows, actually. I'd like to believe gender identity is set at birth, but nothing actually seems to indicate that.

Most people working in the fields of gender studies agree that your gender identity is fluid during your life. That doesn't mean that everyone, or even most people, are going to switch to an entirely new identity, but it does mean that the overall shape (for lack of a better word) and intensity of your identity are going to shift. You may become more or less masculine or feminine, you may move towards androgyny, you may have periods of your life where you're not really strongly affiliated with your gender, etc.

But Smash is right, we don't really know why some people will possess an alternate gender identity to their ***, or why some people don't possess a gender identity, or why some people will move through identities and never "land" on one.

It's like most of psychology really. There is some link between that and neuroscience, but we know so frickin' little because the brain is so ridiculously complex, genes from all over the chromosomal map influence everything, and even if you understood the brain you'd need to understand everything else because the brain receives feedback from our peripheral nervous system and other organs.

In this sense, it's actually very similar to your sexuality, which is more fluid than your identity. Your sexual orientation may not be super fluid, but the other aspects of your sexuality are extremely fluid. We don't really know why someone latches on to one kink or another. And a kink can be a gateway to an orientation shift, so it's possible we're talking about similar processes in the brain. Or maybe I, humanities guy, am reducing two completely separate biological processes into one because they look similar.

TL;DR: We don't know; all we know is that gender identities are far more fluid than common wisdom suggests they are.

Someone can no more decide this than they can the color of the sky. It is what it is, and whether other people realize it or not doesn't change the facts.

Likewise, there's other biological factors that are what they are and wishing them otherwise doesn't change their facts any more than my genetics or anatomy change if I wish myself Asian or a gorilla or seven feet tall. Basing one's legal identity off these factors isn't bigoted or cruel or heartless, it's just common sense versus some vague nebulous "You are what you feel like" criteria.

How about if we just extract our bodily waste through a port - on the hip maybe. You just go into the public disposal station open the child-proof cap on your hip-port, stick the suction hose in and suck it out, a quick pass with a sterile wipe, cap it up and done.

Someone can no more decide this than they can the color of the sky. It is what it is, and whether other people realize it or not doesn't change the facts.

Likewise, there's other biological factors that are what they are and wishing them otherwise doesn't change their facts any more than my genetics or anatomy change if I wish myself Asian or a gorilla or seven feet tall. Basing one's legal identity off these factors isn't bigoted or cruel or heartless, it's just common sense versus some vague nebulous "You are what you feel like" criteria.

Ok, but the word "man" doesn't mean "A person who the law of the current state recognizes as a male." Using it that way (wrong) is not only ambiguous and potentially confusing about what you actually mean, but also does a really good job of demonstrating your hate. If that's not what you're trying to do, you should probably stop.

Sure they do. All the time, in fact. Christians, Democrats, whatever. People assign themselves to groups by making choices all the time. If what you say is true, then there would have to be some subset of people who were "saying" they were transgendered who were "wrong". Is that really what you believe? That some subset of trans people are somehow invalid because they only "say" they are? Really?

Either they are, or they are not. The facts don't change just because there is no proof, or because no one knows the truth.

Yeah, listen, Calvinism is a *little* passe. I understand your point, and the petty fear it arises from, but it's exceptionally unlikely that someone is "born" transgendered any more than someone is "born" *** or "born" straight, or whatever. Gender identity is too complex to be something derived genetically from birth. Attempting to make it something else, like skin color, is idiotic.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Ok, but the word "man" doesn't mean "A person who the law of the current state recognizes as a male." Using it that way (wrong) is not only ambiguous and potentially confusing about what you actually mean, but also does a really good job of demonstrating your hate. If that's not what you're trying to do, you should probably stop.

For fuck sake, know your audience a little. Zero people you're addressing here are at all impressed by your obvious recent "no zealot like a convert" awakening to this line of thinking. It's not novel, it's boring and naive. We get it. You're not amazing anyone with your insights. You are providing no new information. None. You're repeating a known existing position that you've oh so clearly been spoon fed. Glad it resonated with you, but the proselytizing is absolutely not necessary here.

Know this, though: You're parroting the heavy handed PR line and showing an actual lack of understanding of the nuance of GLBT issues. It's like responding to a discussion about Aquinas' arguments for the existence of god with "you're going to **** if you don't believe Christ is your savior!" A quaint tagline you might believe if you're a Christian, but not very useful or interesting.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Ok, but the word "man" doesn't mean "A person who the law of the current state recognizes as a male."

It usually does when using it as a criteria to determine some gender-based inclusion or exclusion (who to let in your restroom, who to award a scholarship to, who to allow into your He-Man Woman Haters club, etc). Particularly when you're dealing with people whose primary counter argument is apparently "You're a bigoty-bigoted hatey-hate hater!!"

I've been in some family restrooms I liked; those are awesome in general. Also men's restrooms with baby-changing tables are a godsend. In general though, public restrooms are only for emergencies and long car trips.

It's pretty rare for me to find one of these around here, but when I do, I like to leave a note on the restroom door that reads "You had no changing table in this men's room, which of course is your decision. Being a man who had to change an infants diaper, I too, made a decision. I held him up with one hand and removed his diaper and dropped it on the floor while shook **** off of him, also onto your floor. This seems a less than ideal method of disposal, but as you've forced me to decide between setting my infant down on the floor of your restroom or leaving his **** in a pile on the floor, I chose the latter. Free will, awesome, am I right?"

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

It's pretty rare for me to find one of these around here, but when I do, I like to leave a note on the restroom door that reads "You had no changing table in this men's room, which of course is your decision. Being a man who had to change an infants diaper, I too, made a decision. I held him up with one hand and removed his diaper and dropped it on the floor while shook sh*t off of him, also onto your floor. This seems a less than ideal method of disposal, but as you've forced me to decide between setting my infant down on the floor of your restroom or leaving his sh*t in a pile on the floor, I chose the latter. Free will, awesome, am I right?"

Sure they do. All the time, in fact. Christians, Democrats, whatever. People assign themselves to groups by making choices all the time.

There's usually a little more to being a christian, or democrat than just saying you are.

Quote:

If what you say is true, then there would have to be some subset of people who were "saying" they were transgendered who were "wrong". Is that really what you believe? That some subset of trans people are somehow invalid because they only "say" they are? Really?

Sure, there are plenty of people who think they may be trans, but aren't sure. Some of them eventually determine that they are not.

Quote:

Quote:

Either they are, or they are not. The facts don't change just because there is no proof, or because no one knows the truth.

Yeah, listen, Calvinism is a *little* passe. I understand your point, and the petty fear it arises from, but it's exceptionally unlikely that someone is "born" transgendered any more than someone is "born" *** or "born" straight, or whatever. Gender identity is too complex to be something derived genetically from birth. Attempting to make it something else, like skin color, is idiotic.

Who said it was? There is a middle ground between something being genetic and unchangeable, like skin color, and being a choice that can be changed at any time for any reason, like what you want to eat for dinner. Some things can be influenced by someone's environment, or choices, but still not be a simple choice for them to make at any time. This is one of those.

Jophiel wrote:

Rachel9 wrote:

Ok, but the word "man" doesn't mean "A person who the law of the current state recognizes as a male."

It usually does when using it as a criteria to determine some gender-based inclusion or exclusion (who to let in your restroom, who to award a scholarship to, who to allow into your He-Man Woman Haters club, etc).

No, it really doesn't. More appropriate would be "biological (fe)male" to refer to a person's (original) ***, "legally fe(male)", to refer to what the law considers them. ****, even just male or female would be much better, if that's too much trouble for you.

Quote:

You're repeating a known existing position that you've oh so clearly been spoon fed.

Well, either that, or i've just gotten really sick of being called a man, and came up with it on my own.